Why KU Lost

First I'll start with why they did NOT lose.

1.  They Choked.  This is ridiculous.  Since 2008, KU has played 12 Tournament games against lower seeded teams.  They're 10-2 in those games.  The whole "clutch players make clutch plays and pretenders come up short" theory is a bunch of sports bunk.  Yes, big players make big plays, but they make them all the time, not just in the clutch.  They make clutch plays...but they also make ordinary ones as well.  George Brett hit .375 in "the clutch"- with runners on base and in scoring position.  Thing is, he also hit .305 for his career as a whole, and almost every hitter hits better, as a rule with runners in scoring position.  When runners are on base, the pithcer must pitch from the stretch position, and he is less effective.  Brett didn't hit better in the clutch than other hitters because he was a better clutch hitter- he hit better in the clutch because he was just a better hitter, period, in ANY situation, clutch or not.  Jordan wasn't a better shooter in the clutch because he was a better clutch shooter- he was just a better shooter period. 

National championships are the product of getting to the Final Four a lot of times.  Get there a lot, and win a few.  Final Fours are the product of 25+ win seasons.  You win some, and you lose some- and KU has won more than its fair share.  Anyone who thinks KU choked this year should take a head count of other big name programs present in this Final Four.  Since only one team can win every year and only four teams can make the Final Four, any big name program- Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, etc., will almost invariably "fail" more often than it "succeeds".  Something tells me we've not seen the last of the 'Hawks.

2.  They didn't impose their will.  Against UNI, yes; against VCU, no.  If both teams shoot their average from 3, the field, the line- KU wins by 20.  That wasn't the case against UNI.  KU had opportunities that it didn't capitalize.

3.  VCU was lucky/KU was unlucky.  Certaily a contributing factor.  KU has a good 3 pt FG defense, and was a good 3 pt FG shooting team.  If this game were played out 20 times, exactly as it were, KU's shots go in, and they win 16 or 17 of them.  And absent this, they likely do win....but not why they lost.

Now, for reasons they actually did lose.

1.  Refs.  Hold your contempt, please.  The refs in this particular game did NOT cost us.  It's refs at Allen Field House.  This is something difficult for KU fans to comprehend.  They watch KU home games, and they see calls go KU's way, and agree with the calls; and when you look at the replay, the call looks good, and KU fans convince themselves calls are fair.  It's true, the calls are correct enough.  That's not the problem. 

The problem is illustrated in two plays in the VCU game, one in each half.  The first was Tyshawn Taylor's second foul, a charge, that most clearly was a block.  Taylor was in the air, the VCU player slid underneath.  10 refs out  of 10 will call that play a block, when looking at it on a replay.  Full speed, it's still a block 6 or 7 times out of ten.  The problem is that 10 times out of 10, it's a block in AFH. 

The other play was the block on Markieff.  Same thing.  KU just isn't accustomed to not getting the call.  Tiger and Wildcat fans are wrong that KU gets all the calls, and that's why they win.  KU wins because they're good.  And it isn't that they don't get all the calls.  But, they're at least half right in that when there's something that can be called, when KU's playing at home, especially in conference, it is called.  KU is disadvantaged in Tournament games, because of this. 

2.  The Big XII.  By the way, I'm not listing these in any particular order.  2011 reminds me a lot of 2007.  KU had a good team, and lost an Elite Eight game in which they didn't shoot particularly well.  Also, both years, they won the conference and the conference tournament- and it was a weak conference.  I've never put a whole lot of stock in a team's non con.  This is partly because it's a bit of a crapshoot in that when you schedule the games, you have no idea whether the teams you're playing are even good.  KU played half of the Big 10, half of the Pac 10, several Tournament teams, including Arizona, UCLA, Michigan, and Memphis, and really didn't have a strong non con- but not for lack of trying.  The other reason I put little stock in it, is because the games are played in November and December.  The teams you play may be day and night different then, than what they may later become (think Arizona). 

The hard part of your shedule is supposed to be in conference.  For what it's worth, I do think it's possible for a team to play too difficult of a schedule and be too beaten up to compete in the Tournament.  I think this is a problem with several Big East teams.  Regardless, you're supposed to be challenged.  In 2007,  KU, Texas, and Texas A&M were the only good Big XII teams, and KU only had three games against them.  It wasn't that there weren't other decent teams; just that those three were head and shoulders above the others. 

Unfortunately, 2011 wasn't much different.  KU had a cakewalk through conference play.  They were challenged exactly 5 times since January 1- Nebraska, K-State, Texas, Oklahoma State, and VCU.  I don't recall but maybe one game all year where Kansas trailed by more than 10 points and won.  Bottom line:  winning is dealing with adversity.  If you never face it, you can never deal with it. 

3.  Free Throws.  Many consider the 2008 team to be superior from the foul line, vis a vis the 2011 group.  Yes...and no. The former shot about 70%, while the latter only about 67.5%.  Also, comparing the shooters' percentages, by position (if you were to compare Chalmers to Taylor, Morris to Jackson, for example), there isn't much difference.  The difference is in who is taking the shots.  The twins led the team in free throw attempts, which is telling (Mc with 207, Mk with 149).  In 2008, Jackson led the team with 149 (Think about that- either of the Twins would've led the 2008 group in attempts.).  Chalmers, Robinson and Rush followed, respectively, with 130, 113, and 86 (Arthur and Jackson came in behind Chalmers and ahead of Robinson).  It's also worth pointing out that Rush missed part of the season with an injury- as the season wore on, he took on an increasing percentage of the team's attempts.  Kaun, who shot worse than T-Rob was down on the list.  Taylor was the only guard in 2011 who broke 100 attempts.  Reed was the only guard who broke 90. 

Selby, Little, Morningstar, and Johnson shot 37, 36, 35, and 13 attempts, respectively.  By comparison, Rodrick Stewart....RODRICK STEWART...had 28.  KU was a poor foul shooting team because its poorer shooters got to the stripe- and their better ones didn't.  Bad as KU's foul shooting was, I never worried when KU had a late lead in a close game about how their guys would perform on the foul line.  In those situations, they always got the ball to their better shooters.  I always worried about games they might not be in, solely due to bad foul shooting.  A two point deficit that could've been a two point lead.  A ten point deficit that could've been four.  Didn't it feel that way today?

Not only was it a problem against VCU, it was a symptom of a larger issue- not attacking the rim.  Our guards never got to the line because they were always shooting from the outside.  Taylor was fine (much to the chagrin of many KU faithful).  He attacked the rim.  He got  to the line.  The other guards, great as they were at not turning it over and hitting threes and playing defense, were never a threat to score off the dribble.  They were relegated to living on the perimeter- where they ultimately died. 

4.  Transition.  This is a difficult statistic to measure.  It's something that almost never shows up in a box score.  Many think that fast break points and transition points are synonymous- they aren't.  Bill Self, in his postgame, noted that KU had, at halftime, given up 0 fast break points and 14 transition points.  Point is, all year, KU hasn't defended well in it, and they haven't scored well in it.

That's the thing about the Tournament.  Sometimes it's about how good you are on your worst day.  If you have a weakness, you inevitably will run into a team who can exploit it.  KU's weaknesses were hidden deep inside the stat lines.  VCU found them, and exploited them- and they caught KU on a really bad day- and it was enough.